Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to notify him of a change in benefit entitlement when acting as his wife’s appointee and related matters. This led to an overpayment of other benefits. During the course of the Ombudsman’s investigation, the Council accepted it was at fault and offered to make a payment to Mr X and correct any financial injustice caused. The Council has also agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council failed to take appropriate action when it received notification from the Department for Work and Pensions about a change in his wife’s benefit entitlement. As a result, they received an overpayment of other benefits. He also complains about the way the Council dealt with his complaint about this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of my investigation I have:

• considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr X’s representative;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response; and
• sent my draft decision to both parties and invited comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

5. Where someone is unable to manage their own finances because of a mental disorder or severe disability, an appointee can apply to the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) for the right to deal with their benefits. The DWP guidance for appointees says that an appointee becomes fully responsible for acting on the customer’s behalf in all the customer’s dealings with the DWP – they “stand in the shoes of the claimant”. This includes claiming benefits, reporting changes of circumstances, and “spending the benefits in a person’s best interests”.

What happened

6. The Council acted as appointee for Mrs X’s benefits. Mr and Mrs X also received advice and support with financial matters from the Citizens Advice Bureau (“the CAB”).
7. Mrs X was in receipt of Pension Credit, administered by the Pension Service, part of the DWP.
8. In February 2018, the DWP wrote to the Council, in its capacity as Mrs X’s appointee, advising that her Pension Credit would soon be stopped. This was because the DWP did not have up to date information about Mr X’s finances. The DWP asked the Council to provide this information in order for Pension Credit to continue.
9. The Council did not reply and so Pension Credit ended in March 2018.
10. The Council provided information to the DWP about Mr X’s finances in April 2018. The Council asked for the claim to be reconsidered. There is no record of a response to this request from the DWP. Pension Credit was not reinstated.
11. In October 2018, an advisor from the CAB, contacted the Council to discuss a possible discrepancy in their benefit entitlement. In particular, the advisor was concerned that Mr and Mrs X were no longer in receipt of Pension Credit which could affect their entitlement to other benefits.
12. The CAB sent a number of reminder emails to the Council before it was confirmed that Pension Credit had been stopped earlier that year.
13. The CAB complained to the Council, on behalf of Mr X, in December 2018.

The Council’s complaint response

14. The Council confirmed it received letters from the DWP in February and March 2018 advising that Mr and Mrs X were no longer entitled to Pension Credit. It said Mr X should have been provided with a copy of these letters and discussed council tax reductions with him. The Council was unaware Mr and Mrs X were claiming housing benefit and only knew this is December 2018 when told by the CAB.
15. Whilst accepting there had been some delay in responding to CAB, the complaint was not upheld. This was because the role of appointee was limited to claiming benefits, reporting a change of circumstances and “managing and spending benefits in the best interest of a person who lacks capacity”.
16. Dissatisfied with this response, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.

Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman

17. His complaint covered three points:

• The Council’s failure to identify changes to Pension Credit and manage the process.
• The Council’s failure to address the financial implications of this fault on other benefits.
• The Council’s Impartial complaint handling. The investigation into the complaint was conducted by the same officer who dealt with the CAB enquiries in October and November 2018.

Response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries

18. The Council made the following points:

• The complaint about the Council’s failure to notify Mr X about non payment of Pension Credit should have been upheld.
• Mr X has been supported by the Council in maximizing his benefit entitlement and taking over appointeeship for his wife.
• The complaint investigation should have been conducted by someone independent, rather than the officer directly involved in the matters complained about. It happened because of an internal promotion.

19. The Council confirmed that the overpayment of housing benefit/ council tax support has already been repaid to the relevant district council.
20. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr X, the Council has offered to pay Mr X £200 to recognise his time and trouble dealing with this matter.
21. The Council has also said it will ensure Mr and Mrs X are not financially disadvantaged by an underpayment of benefit when their capital fell below £16,000 (when the overpayment referred to above was repaid). The Council will discuss this directly with Mr X.

Analysis

22. The Council has accepted there was fault in the way it acted as appointee for Mrs X’s benefits. It should have told Mr X about the potential withdrawal of Pension Credit. It also took too long to deal with the CAB enquiries about this in October and November 2018.
23. It has acknowledged this case highlighted the need for officers to be aware of the potential wider implications of changes to benefits and its duty to client to who they act as appointee. This has been accepted by the Council and I welcome this.
24. It has also accepted it was wrong for the officer who was directly involved with the appointeeship issue to then investigate the complaint about this. This was in breach of the Council’s complaints policy which says investigations should be carried out by someone independent.
25. The need for such independence was demonstrated by the confusing complaint outcome. While accepting there had been mistakes, the complaint was not upheld. The Council changed its position on this in response to enquiries by the Ombudsman. Had the Council considered this matter objectively, I am satisfied it would have upheld the complaint earlier. Failure to do so has meant Mr X had to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman. The unnecessary time and trouble of having to do this is injustice.
26. The Council has offered to pay Mr X £200 to remedy this injustice. It has already dealt with the overpayment of other benefits and will address any financial disadvantage to Mr and Mrs X arising from its actions.
27. I consider this to be an appropriate remedy and sufficient to put matters right.

Agreed action

28. To remedy the injustice identified above, the Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks from the date of my final decision:
1. Apologise in writing to Mr and Mrs X.
2. Pay Mr X £200 in recognition of the time and trouble he has spent dealing with this matter.
3. Contact Mr X to discuss any other financial recompense due to him as a result of his capital falling below the £16,000 threshold.

Back to top

Final decision

29. The Ombudsman has found the Council to be at fault in the way it managed benefits on behalf of someone else.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman